What exactly is happening with AstraZeneca?

runawaybishop · 31-01-2021 11:27PM

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

I disagree, but feel free to provide evidence.

We follow WHO guidelines

A death due to COVID-19 is defined for surveillance purposes as a death resulting from a clinically compatible illness, in a probable or confirmed COVID-19 case, unless there is a clear alternative cause of death that cannot be related to COVID disease (e.g. trauma)

There should be no period of complete recovery from COVID-19 between illness and death. A death due to COVID-19 may not be attributed to another disease (e.g. cancer) and should be counted independently of pre-existing conditions that are suspected of triggering a severe course of COVID-19.”

“should be recorded on the medical certificate of cause of death for ALL decedents (deceased people) where the disease caused, or is assumed to have caused, or contributed to death”.

Feel free to look up the who guidelines yourself.

Wolf359f · 31-01-2021 11:33PM

Donald Trump wrote: »

Why is the infection rate in the UK only something like 1.4x the infection rate in Ireland .... but the mortality rate is something like 2.5x ?

And yet their positivity rate is extremely low, kept into the single digits over Christmas and New Years. Meaning all things being equal, they were missing less cases than we were when we were over 10%

It would be interesting to dig down into the data and see the % hospitalization rate per age groups to see.

brickster69 · 31-01-2021 11:33PM

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Two interesting bits from tonight's Daily Telegraph:

So this drags on ... but Germany and France are on to a loser.

How can Germany and France threaten legal action when the agreement was between EU & AZ ?

McGiver · 31-01-2021 11:34PM

Aegir wrote: »

You’re joking right?

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/

Just because you’re too lazy to look is doesn’t mean it is there.

I posted a direct link to the ECDC table with a list of EU countries and clear indication of the methodology used. I asked you to provide the same and you refused to do so for the UK. You will be reported for ad hominem.

I had to find that myself - next time instead of complaining/ranting provide evidence others asked you to provide.

Number of deaths of people who had had a positive test result for COVID-19 and died within 28 days of the first positive test. Data from the four nations are not directly comparable as methodologies and inclusion criteria vary.

OK, methodologies vary.

England
Data on COVID-19 associated deaths in England are produced by Public Health England (PHE) from multiple sources linked to confirmed case data. Deaths newly reported each day cover the 24 hours up to 5pm on the previous day.

Deaths are only included if the deceased had had a positive test for COVID-19 and died within 28 days of the first positive test.

No mention of settings at all, in fact. This is very different to France and Belgium. It is not from all settings unlike you claim, and it doesn't include probable/suspected cases.

Conclusion - Care homes, community and suspected deaths may not be included in the UK stats.

...Ghost... · 31-01-2021 11:35PM

lawred2 wrote: »

Do you actually know what you're taking about? Are you a scientist?

I've a fair idea yes. I'm not a virologist, but I am in a field which lends me interest on the topic. By the way, you don't need to be a scientist to understand peer reviewed and published articles on vaccine resistance.

A virus is designed to survive, replicate and spread. Every virus has the potential to mutate to become more effective at either of these three primary tasks. Mutation may be accidental, or evolutionary, the latter of which is often the result of environmental conditions.

Look at the flu virus. We see a number of new variants every year which are resistant to the previous years vaccines. The virus mutates and becomes resistant to the very vaccine designed to stop it it from one, or all three main functions mentioned already.

The coronavirus has a low mutation rate compared to the flu virus when you consider number of infections to number of recorded mutations. As I have said, the virus often mutates to better handle its environment. Injecting tens of millions of people with an insufficient dose of a vaccine gives the virus a huge opportunity to mutate into a variant resistant to the vaccine. It will only take one virus to mutate and spread to put us into an even worse situation than now....all thanks to certain people in power taking foolish and unnecessary risks.

So, are you a scientist?

lawred2 · 31-01-2021 11:40PM

...Ghost... wrote: »

I've a fair idea yes. I'm not a virologist, but I am in a field which lends me interest on the topic. By the way, you don't need to be a scientist to understand peer reviewed and published articles on vaccine resistance.

A virus is designed to survive, replicate and spread. Every virus has the potential to mutate to become more effective at either of these three primary tasks. Mutation may be accidental, or evolutionary, the latter of which is often the result of environmental conditions.

Look at the flu virus. We see a number of new variants every year which are resistant to the previous years vaccines. The virus mutates and becomes resistant to the very vaccine designed to stop it it from one, or all three main functions mentioned already.

The coronavirus has a low mutation rate compared to the flu virus when you consider number of infections to number of recorded mutations. As I have said, the virus often mutates to better handle its environment. Injecting tens of millions of people with an insufficient dose of a vaccine gives the virus a huge opportunity to mutate into a variant resistant to the vaccine. It will only take one virus to mutate and spread to put us into an even worse situation than now....all thanks to certain people in power taking foolish and unnecessary risks.

So, are you a scientist?

I'm an engineer. Biology or virology is not my thing. Hence I don't make such statements.

I was genuinely asking you whether you knew what you were talking about.. every single covid thread is awash with pseudoscience bullsh!t from armchair blog readers being passed off as original thought.

...Ghost... · 31-01-2021 11:42PM

lawred2 wrote: »

I'm an engineer. Biology or virology is not my thing. Hence I don't make such statements.

I was genuinely asking you whether you knew what you were talking about.. every single covid thread is awash with pseudoscience bullsh!t from armchair blog readers being passed off as original thought.

Fair point. Engineers don't make subtle points. I should know

Wolf359f · 31-01-2021 11:43PM

brickster69 wrote: »

How can Germany and France threaten legal action when the agreement was between EU & AZ ?

Maybe the EU takes legal action on behalf of German & France.
Who knows, I'm sure there's procedures in place when you're dealing with the EU and a certain country has an issue. The EU wasn't created overnight, so I'm sure there a standard clause in there somewhere.

frozen3 · 31-01-2021 11:47PM

...Ghost... wrote: »

I've a fair idea yes. I'm not a virologist, but I am in a field which lends me interest on the topic. By the way, you don't need to be a scientist to understand peer reviewed and published articles on vaccine resistance.

A virus is designed to survive, replicate and spread. Every virus has the potential to mutate to become more effective at either of these three primary tasks. Mutation may be accidental, or evolutionary, the latter of which is often the result of environmental conditions.

Look at the flu virus. We see a number of new variants every year which are resistant to the previous years vaccines. The virus mutates and becomes resistant to the very vaccine designed to stop it it from one, or all three main functions mentioned already.

The coronavirus has a low mutation rate compared to the flu virus when you consider number of infections to number of recorded mutations. As I have said, the virus often mutates to better handle its environment. Injecting tens of millions of people with an insufficient dose of a vaccine gives the virus a huge opportunity to mutate into a variant resistant to the vaccine. It will only take one virus to mutate and spread to put us into an even worse situation than now....all thanks to certain people in power taking foolish and unnecessary risks.

So, are you a scientist?

That was a good read

Your saying selective pressure on the virus through pharmacology aka vaccine will cause it to mutate?

Makes sense but what is/was the alternative?

Eradification way back when it emerged? Treatment pharmacology instead of preventative aka repurposed or new treatment medication vs a vaccine?

We cant let it rip through society, we have to do something? It would collapse even the greatest health care systems unchecked

mista11 · 31-01-2021 11:48PM

brickster69 wrote: »

How can Germany and France threaten legal action when the agreement was between EU & AZ ?

Ive just read the article and its a story purley made to sell papers to the tory elite, stoking up tensions when its not being reported that way on the continent

Basically saying that that IF the EU has diverted EU contracted supply they will sue, there is no evidence of this at all.

If they do find evidence then the Pharma companies will deserve everything they get

ThePanjandrum · 31-01-2021 11:54PM

McGiver wrote: »

I had to find that myself - next time instead of complaining/ranting provide evidence others asked you to provide.

Yesterday I had a comment removed by moderators because they claimed I asked someone provide evidence.

I fact I was saying something along the lines of "unless you know differently."

Moderators, for guidance, can you ask people for information or not?

It seems to be a bit one rule for you one rule for me.

31-01-2021 11:58PM

Donald Trump wrote: »

Why is the infection rate in the UK only something like 1.4x the infection rate in Ireland .... but the mortality rate is something like 2.5x ?

What does that have to do with anything?

There could be a number of reasons for that, a much older population for starters. Certain ethnic groups appear to have higher risk levels as well.

Far lower testing rates and no published excess mortality details in Ireland could also mean deaths not being counted.

...Ghost... · 31-01-2021 11:59PM

frozen3 wrote: »

That was a good read

Your saying selective pressure on the virus through pharmacology aka vaccine will cause it to mutate?

Makes sense but what is/was the alternative?

Eradification way back when it emerged? Treatment pharmacology instead of preventative aka repurposed or new treatment medication vs a vaccine?

We cant let it rip through society, we have to do something? It would collapse even the greatest health care systems unchecked

I'm saying (according to research on pathogen drug and vaccine resistance) that giving a low dose, or failing to meet a recommended follow on dose of the vaccine "may" cause the virus to mutate into a vaccine resistant strain which may then spread from the host through the population, including the parts of the population in other countries which gave the correct dose.

My understanding is the UK are gambling by not giving the right dose. Hopefully that information is wrong. But if it is correct, then many millions of people will be insufficiently vaccinated and are a much greater risk of allowing a mutation within a host. The odds may be 1 in 1,000 or some other arbitrary number, but when you have tens of millions of rolls of the dice, your chances of hitting the number you bet against are significantly increased.

The answer is correct dosage of vaccine, aswell as strict hygiene and social distancing etc.

edit: here is a bbc article supporting what I said about the uk gamble. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55503739

changing from 3 weeks to 12 weeks for dose 2 is reckless.

frozen3 · 01-02-2021 12:10AM

...Ghost... wrote: »

I'm saying (according to research on pathogen drug and vaccine resistance) that giving a low dose, or failing to meet a recommended follow on dose of the vaccine "may" cause the virus to mutate into a vaccine resistant strain which may then spread from the host through the population, including the parts of the population in other countries which gave the correct dose.

My understanding is the UK are gambling by not giving the right dose. Hopefully that information is wrong. But if it is correct, then many millions of people will be insufficiently vaccinated and are a much greater risk of allowing a mutation within a host. The odds may be 1 in 1,000 or some other arbitrary number, but when you have tens of millions of rolls of the dice, your chances of hitting the number you bet against are significantly increased.

edit: here is a bbc article supporting what I said about the uk gamble. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55503739

changing from 3 weeks to 12 weeks for dose 2 is reckless.

Interesting re vaccines = mutations

You do know the troublesome mutations have all.come from countries AZ had large phase 3 trials in?

Countries they had trials in

SA, UK, Brazil, Japan, India

Only India left now to get a mutation

...Ghost... · 01-02-2021 12:15AM

frozen3 wrote: »

Interesting re vaccines = mutations

You do know the troublesome mutations have all.come from countries AZ had large phase 3 trials in?

Countries they had trials in

SA, UK, Brazil, Japan, India

Only India left now to get a mutation

I'm not aware of that, so I can't comment. It could be coincidence. My main concern is not so much a mutation, but specifically a mutation which is vaccine resistant. The chances of this happening are much higher when people are not properly vaccinated.

redarmyblues · 01-02-2021 12:29AM

It doesn't seem to have been noticed by many because of the fuss about the proposed invocation Article 16 of the Irish Protocol that the original EU regulation containing the invocation passed yesterday (Saturday) in more or less its original state minus the Article 16 clause.

The gist of the regulation is that Exporters of vaccines from the EU to certain third countries must now get an authorisation to do so and to get the authorisation they must give details of vaccine distributed to date and where it went, furthermore exports will be prohibited if they cause the exporter not to fulfil its obligations to EU APAs, in other words, this can result in an export ban to these countries, of which the UK is one.

The UK would in that situation have only access to UK made AZ shots as far as Europe goes Biontech is only been made by Pfizer in Belgium with a Biontech plant in Marburg scheduled to begin production before the end of February which is meant to produce 750mio doses by year-end.

Now you might think that the UK is sitting pretty having AZ manufacturing within its borders, however, there are doubts about the efficacy of Oxford among older people and the ability of AZ to make it to the required scale, while the fact remains that the vast majority of shots administered to date in the UK are Pfizer.

Whether it was intended to or not the proposed invocation of article 16 has allowed the EU to slip the balls between the legs of the UK without them noticing.

brickster69 · 01-02-2021 12:42AM

redarmyblues wrote: »

It doesn't seem to have been noticed by many because of the fuss about the proposed invocation Article 16 of the Irish Protocol that the original EU regulation containing the invocation passed yesterday (Saturday) in more or less its original state minus the Article 16 clause.

The gist of the regulation is that Exporters of vaccines from the EU to certain third countries must now get an authorisation to do so and to get the authorisation they must give details of vaccine distributed to date and where it went, furthermore exports will be prohibited if they cause the exporter not to fulfil its obligations to EU APAs, in other words, this can result in an export ban to these countries, of which the UK is one.

The UK would in that situation have only access to UK made AZ shots as far as Europe goes Biontech is only been made by Pfizer in Belgium with a Biontech plant in Marburg scheduled to begin production before the end of February which is meant to produce 750mio doses by year-end.

Now you might think that the UK is sitting pretty having AZ manufacturing within its borders, however, there are doubts about the efficacy of Oxford among older people and the ability of AZ to make it to the required scale, while the fact remains that the vast majority of shots administered to date in the UK are Pfizer.

Whether it was intended to or not the proposed invocation of article 16 has allowed the EU to slip the balls between the legs of the UK without them noticing.

Very cunning. Best to check first though that no British company makes any key components for the Bion Tech vaccine.

redarmyblues · 01-02-2021 12:54AM

brickster69 wrote: »

Very cunning. Best to check first though that no British company makes any key components for the Bion Tech vaccine.

The ban would be on vaccines only, the EU is not planning on banning exports of items to the UK that may or may not be used in the production of AZ. The moral is that its a long road has no turning.

Wolf359f · 01-02-2021 12:55AM

brickster69 wrote: »

Very cunning. Best to check first though that no British company makes any key components for the Bion Tech vaccine.

Cunning? It seems like the EU is worried some vaccine companies may decide to start reneging on their EU contracts to sell abroad for a higher profit.
Worst case scenario, if AZ done a deal with the EU for €3 a dose and got paid millions in advance to upscale production and then decided to sell millions of doses to another country outside the EU for €6 a dose and cite a supply issue or maybe they sign a contract with that other country stating their order will be fulfilled before the EU, ergo the EU have to wait etc....

It's not an export ban, but it's an extremely firm notice to vaccine companies to fulfill their EU contract as agreed.

redarmyblues · 01-02-2021 01:03AM

Wolf359f wrote: »

It's not an export ban, but it's an extremely firm notice to vaccine companies to fulfill their EU contract as agreed.

Or else exports are banned.

redarmyblues · 01-02-2021 01:10AM

Here is the regulation if anybody is interested.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32021R0111&from=EN

The countries that are excluded are on the principle of solidarity are

exports to Republic of Albania, Andorra, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Faeroe Islands, the Republic of Iceland,
Kosovo (
4
), the Principality of Liechtenstein, Montenegro, the Kingdom of Norway, the Republic of North Macedonia,
the Republic of San Marino, Serbia, the Swiss confederation, Vatican City State, the overseas countries, territories listed
in Annex II of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union, and exports to Büsingen, Helgoland, Livigno, Ceuta
and Melilla, Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Palestine (
5
), Syria, Tunisia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus,
Georgia, Israel, Moldova and Ukraine

So effectively only the UK and Russia are affected in Europe and the Med.

Wolf359f · 01-02-2021 01:11AM

redarmyblues wrote: »

Or else exports are banned.

A ban would be an outright ban, like the US, regardless of reason.
So in your mind, it's ok for a vaccine company to take on a contract and then break it and ship supplies abroad for profit?
Because I'm sure in your eyes, you would love to see a bidding war.

Wolf359f · 01-02-2021 01:14AM

redarmyblues wrote: »

Here is the regulation if anybody is interested.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32021R0111&from=EN

The countries that are excluded are on the principle of solidarity are

exports to Republic of Albania, Andorra, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Faeroe Islands, the Republic of Iceland,
Kosovo (
4
), the Principality of Liechtenstein, Montenegro, the Kingdom of Norway, the Republic of North Macedonia,
the Republic of San Marino, Serbia, the Swiss confederation, Vatican City State, the overseas countries, territories listed
in Annex II of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union, and exports to Büsingen, Helgoland, Livigno, Ceuta
and Melilla, Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Palestine (
5
), Syria, Tunisia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus,
Georgia, Israel, Moldova and Ukraine

So effectively only the UK and Russia are affected in Europe and the Med.

They just gave a list of countries AZ can setup a distribution hub in

redarmyblues · 01-02-2021 01:16AM

Wolf359f wrote: »

I'm sure in your eyes, you would love to see a bidding war.

How do you figure out that, I am only pointing out what the MSM particularly the UK media have missed.

Wolf359f · 01-02-2021 01:18AM

redarmyblues wrote: »

How do you figure out that, I am only pointing out what the MSM particularly the UK media have missed.

They haven't missed anything, they will just call it a ban and paint it as the EU demanding UK vaccines etc...

redarmyblues · 01-02-2021 01:21AM

Wolf359f wrote: »

They haven't missed anything, they will just call it a ban and paint it as the EU demanding UK vaccines etc...

Sound so, good man, you are bang on right, The Telegraph has been seething with rage all weekend about it.

Tyrone212 · 01-02-2021 02:10AM

Aegir wrote: »

What does that have to do with anything?

There could be a number of reasons for that, a much older population for starters. Certain ethnic groups appear to have higher risk levels as well.

Far lower testing rates and no published excess mortality details in Ireland could also mean deaths not being counted.

I remember for a long time the UK was only testing those who presented themselves to hospital with suspected covid.

Wolf359f · 01-02-2021 02:22AM

Tyrone212 wrote: »

I remember for a long time the UK was only testing those who presented themselves to hospital with suspected covid.

That's true, back last April 1st, 3565 admitted to hospital, same day 4940 confirmed cases (72% hospitalization rate)
Jan-May (First wave) : 182,085 cases, 88,902 Hospitalized, (49% hospitalization rate)

Third Wave, 1st Dec to today: 2,116,570 cases 165,219 hospitalized (7% hospitalized)

NeuralNetwork · 01-02-2021 02:55AM

Wolf359f wrote: »

That's true, back last April 1st, 3565 admitted to hospital, same day 4940 confirmed cases (72% hospitalization rate)
Jan-May (First wave) : 182,085 cases, 88,902 Hospitalized, (49% hospitalization rate)

Third Wave, 1st Dec to today: 2,116,570 cases 165,219 hospitalized (7% hospitalized)

Detection rate has improved a lot in that period, but the total number of hospitalisations appears to have almost doubled.

The case number stats may not be directly comparable to the earlier system.

Wolf359f · 01-02-2021 03:15AM

NeuralNetwork wrote: »

Detection rate has improved a lot in that period, but the total number of hospitalisations appears to have almost doubled.

The case number stats may not be directly comparable to the earlier system.

Their detection rate has massively improved, but still is lacking.
7% hospitalizations from December vs Ireland at 4% despite their positivity rate peaking at 12.8% and ours at 23.9% over January.
I can't make sense of the figures.

What exactly is happening with AstraZeneca?

Comments